M
maurin
Guest
What is troubling to me is that a condemned proposition is now common teaching.
- Status
M
maurin
Guest
are you saying that in practice VaticanII has been interpreted in the light of Tradition?
P
pnewton
Guest
That is one opinion. It is not one I hold. What was condemned as error was the reasoning behind religious liberty. Specific laws have always been a matter of prudence. When times change, then the application of religious principles can changes. Also, changing times can give new data to help the development of doctrine. This is my understanding of religious liberty.
M
maurin
Guest
This is also one opinion.
With respect, pnewton, it sounds as if you have put a square peg into a round hole. The application of the law hasn’t changed. The law itself has. What was once condemned is now common teaching.
Your bringing up prudence in the application of the law is just. In Catholic countries with large not Catholic populations it was taught that the limitations of those non Catholic public expressions of faith were themselves to be prudently limited in order to preserve the civil order and the common good.
T
TMC
Guest
I am saying that the Society rejects much of the teaching of the Council, which is true as well as plain and obvious to anyone familiar with SSPX. Even your quote says only that they accept “what is true in the Council” – in other words what they deem to be true, not what was deemed to be true by the bishops gathered in ecumenical council. I understand that they believe they have good reasons for doing so, and I don’t question their motives. But it will be impossible to resolve this impasse without being upfront about what the disagreement is. It seems to me that Bishop Fellay is being upfront about it and we should also speak plainly here. The SSPX rejects much of what Vatican II teaches, and thereby rejects much of what the Church teaches. That is what has lead us to this point. We all hope and pray that this can be resolved, but we must begin with a truthful assessment of where we are now before we can figure out how to move forward.
P
ProVobis
Guest
If this is true what about all the bishops, priests, laity, etc. who work against the SC guidelines by the Council? Are they not just as guilty of anti-VaticanII-ism? And then they have the gall to call out Bishop Fellay on Vatican II as they give the appearance that they are on the Pope’s side on this issue? Why is Vatican II allowed to be used in such a political way? If they are to have any meaning, go over ALL the VII documents and work them into your own diocese. Stop looking for loopholes that try to give you political advantage. All the documents of VII are for the entire Church or they’re not at all.
L
laszlo
Guest
One’s sin does not justifies the sin of the other side. Only those belong to the living Body of Jesus Christ who accept the decisions of the Ecumenical councils and the living hierarchy. The rest lacks the unity and slated to die out.
P
ProVobis
Guest
If this is true what about all the bishops, priests, laity, etc. who work against the SC guidelines by the Council? Are they not just as guilty of anti-VaticanII-ism? And then they have the gall to call out Bishop Fellay on Vatican II as they give the appearance that they are on the Pope’s side on this issue? Why is Vatican II allowed to be used in such a political way? If they are to have any meaning, go over ALL the VII documents and work them into your own diocese. Stop looking for loopholes that try to give you political advantage. All the documents of VII are for the entire Church or they’re not at all.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Does looking for loopholes qualify as “accepting the decisions of the Ecumnenical councils”? Seems that if Bishop Fellay is guilty of anything, it’s that he’s willing to take on these important issues, not hide behind a majority opinion (of bishops, etc.) that’s willing to accept the misapplication of those documents.
M
maurin
Guest
It is quite clear to me that you are confusing the Council and the gross misapplication of the Council, the so-called “spirit of the Council.”
There is very little in the Council documents themselves which the Society actually rejects. You may want to better inform yourself in regards to distinctions and the Society’s actual positions. One risks spreading innaccuracies when one is not so well informed. I mean no disrespect.
P
pnewton
Guest
Exactly! And that is why we need authority from the Church. Otherwise our opinions of what is Traditional teaching becomes no better than Protestants who each interpret Scripture in accord to their opinions.
J
JReducation
Guest
What was once condemned can be lifted, edited or restated by a future pope. It was never declared a dogma. That’s one thing. The other part of this is that we have to trust the judgment of each pope. Popes do know what came before. They’re not ignorant of the fact. They know what they can alter and what has to be left as it. The part that comes off as offensive is that some people are speaking as if the current pope has no knowledge of theology, law, history and what his predecessors had in mind.
In a way, he’s being spoken about as if he’s a complete ignorant. That’s not fair either. Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI are not ignorant men nor do they lack knowledge of the past. They have a very clear idea of the authority that a pope has. They may choose to use it in a way that people may not like. That has happened with every pope.
When John Paul II said no women priests and no abortions, it made him very unpopular with many women. Each pope has his critics. There has never been a pope without his critics.
I think we understand each other, but failed to explain so that others who are reading along understand. I do apologize for that.
We know that the theologians on both sides are the ones who are writing the questions and answering them. It’s all being done by paper, very little is in person.
But I’m talking bottom line here. Cardinal Levada has been given the task of making the final recommendations. This is why the whole thing was taken from the hands of the Ecclesia Dei Commission and given to the Congregation for the Faith. Cardinal Levada has two people giving him (name removed by moderator)ut. One is on the commission, the head of Opus Dei. I don’t know the man. I understand that he is a whip in theology, second only to Joseph Ratzinger and that’s why he was chosen to head Opus Dei. They say that the Jesuit is also very strong. But let’s put him aside for a moment. Let’s take the Opus Dei theologian. Then there are the observations that are going to come back from Pope Benedict as he gets the reports. Those cannot be ignored, because he’s the pope and because he’s one of the best theologians alive today. He argues well, without ever losing his cool. He has a very strong personality to go with that.
My thinking, this is just my opinion, is that Bishop Fellay, whom I believe is a good man and I like him, even though we disagree on the taste of Coke, but he’s a real gentleman and a nice man . . . however, I believe that he would do best to reserve his comments, because he’s up against some brilliant minds and he’s not in the discussion. He’s getting reports. But what he’s reading from them is the part that is being given to him by his theologians. That’s all he can share. However, that’s only half of the picture. We don’t know what the other theologians are handing in.
It would be better for everyone, if we wait for the final ruling to be handed down by the Holy Father. In the end, it’s his decision that’s going to make or break this situation. In the worse case scenario, he tells the Society that they have to tow the line as he calls it, no more conversaton. Some members of the Society will walk, but not all. In the best case scenario, he’ll give them an answer that they can live with. Some members of the other side will walk, because they are adamantly opposed to the Society, but not everyone will walk.
Bottom line, the pope will say the last word and everyone will have to live with it,either in the Church or outside the Church. It’s not going to be a matter of whether he’s right or wrong. It’s going to be a matter of whether he has the authority to command assent. That’s not in question. That’s why you have schisms, because you can’t have coup to take out a pope. He’s the boss. You live with it or you leave and live with your choice.
My best guess is that either way, some people are going to be unhappy and they will walk. I don’t think it will be as many as the nay sayers are saying.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
W
Warrenton
Guest
I understand where you’re coming from; obviously, we disagree but I don’t want to lead us too far afield. This would be fertile ground for other threads.
There is, however, alot we can agree on. For whatever reasons, Rome takes SSPX’s claims seriously, unlike, for instance, the claims of We Are Church.
This is hopeful in itself, because both sides have an interest in unity.
We probably agree that Rome has an ideal concept of unity (I am sure some wish SSPX would just ask permission to become the clown mass confraternity
). Likewise, SSPX has an ideal, namely that -presto- Bugnini becomes an official “non person” and we roll 'er on back to 1962.Between these ideals, the form of unity can vary. It is dependent only on how much the sides are willing to comprimise, and where they chose to emphasise unity, and de-emphasise disagreement, or formally tolerate it.
I believe that that it will happen. Doubtless, though, the work is hard because important principles are at stake on both sides.
W
Warrenton
Guest
Trent was correct in 1560, and it is correct today. But I digress.
I read with interest the scriptural passages you cited. While I do not disagree, I think the more apposite scriptural theme to SSPX and Rome is the entire history of the prophets, in which the interplay between obedience, faithfulness to revealed truth, and unity unfolded.
So often the prophets, in frustration, asked, “How long, O Lord?” The answer, basically, was as long as it takes.
If it takes 100 years, SSPX and Rome should keep working.
W
Warrenton
Guest
This is the dilemma of Vatican II, but also why it is able to be resolved.
If I say, 2 plus 2 is 4. That is tradition. Then I say, 2 plus 2 is 5, but interpret that in light of tradition, what am I really saying?
Pope Paul VI said that the Latin mass was a great treasure, that it was beautiful, that it perfectly expressed the faith. Then he said that the message of the mass was more important than the decrepit silk garments that the mass was clothed in. These comments were made around 1969. What was he really saying? He had a poetic way of speaking sometimes, but as everyone knows, poetry is open to interpretation.
Lumen Gentium is another example of this occultism in language.
I suggest that the unusual way Vatican II documents were written, and the intentions of the council implemented, were not entirely accidental. I think they were deliberately vague. Why? In order to let them either play out toward reform, or if the reform went badly (as it so often did) to permit a retrenchment.
At bottom, that is what SSPX is doing, and that is why it is different than all other dissidents. I would argue that SSPX, more than any other group, is continuing the work of the council. It is, in essence, a loyal opposition, because the “reform of the reform” cannot occur from within Rome, for various reasons, some good and others not so good.
My prediction: both sides will keep working. The council is still open.
T
TMC
Guest
I respectfully disagree. While it may be true that there are large parts of the Council documents that the Society is OK with, the bottom line is that there are some important portions of the Council’s teaching that the SSPX rejects. This is clear both from the interview with Bishop Fellay and from many other statements by SSPX officials over the years. Look, for example, at his response to question 7 of the interview, discussing the “contradiction between Vatican II and the previous Magisterium.” Look also at the articles on the SSPX website which clearly state that their issue is not merely with how some have applied the Council, but with the Council documents themselves. They sometimes use semantics or polite language to lessen the force of their statements, but the bottom line is that they dissent. If they did not, they would not be where they are now.
P
pnewton
Guest
While I do not agree with a lot of your assessment, I do like this term, though it is an oxymoron. I think it captures both the position of the SSPX (as opposition) and the desire of the SSPX (loyalty).
M
maurin
Guest
TMC,
I find it very interesting that you open your last post with “I disagree…” and then change your view from 'the Society rejects much or most of the Council" to “some.” Again, and of course you are free to draw whatever conclusions you draw, it is in reality quite little the Society rejects outright from the Council’s voluminous output of documents.
It is some Teachings per se which have changed, most notably religious liberty and the Chuch’s definition of Itself. Where 1 or only several sentences have served in the past to explain the one or the other, I find it a bit odd that several paragraphs if not pages are necessary to explain how the novelties really haven’t changed the teachings at all. If that were true, the bandwith used in Traditional for a such as this one would have rendered themselves obsolete a ver long time ago, and the Popes certainly would not have referred to silent apostasy or ships taking on water to describe the situation the Church finds Herself in today.
No, I find myself quite confident and inspired to follow the Teachings the Church has always taught prior to the silent apostasy and the ship taking on water.
And of course, you are quite free to disagree.
I find it very interesting that you open your last post with “I disagree…” and then change your view from 'the Society rejects much or most of the Council" to “some.” Again, and of course you are free to draw whatever conclusions you draw, it is in reality quite little the Society rejects outright from the Council’s voluminous output of documents.
It is some Teachings per se which have changed, most notably religious liberty and the Chuch’s definition of Itself. Where 1 or only several sentences have served in the past to explain the one or the other, I find it a bit odd that several paragraphs if not pages are necessary to explain how the novelties really haven’t changed the teachings at all. If that were true, the bandwith used in Traditional for a such as this one would have rendered themselves obsolete a ver long time ago, and the Popes certainly would not have referred to silent apostasy or ships taking on water to describe the situation the Church finds Herself in today.
No, I find myself quite confident and inspired to follow the Teachings the Church has always taught prior to the silent apostasy and the ship taking on water.
And of course, you are quite free to disagree.
J
JReducation
Guest
I really like the way that you worded this.I understand where you’re coming from; obviously, we disagree but I don’t want to lead us too far afield. This would be fertile ground for other threads.
There is, however, alot we can agree on. For whatever reasons, Rome takes SSPX’s claims seriously, unlike, for instance, the claims of We Are Church.
This is hopeful in itself, because both sides have an interest in unity.
We probably agree that Rome has an ideal concept of unity (I am sure some wish SSPX would just ask permission to become the clown mass confraternity
Between these ideals, the form of unity can vary. It is dependent only on how much the sides are willing to comprimise, and where they chose to emphasise unity, and de-emphasise disagreement, or formally tolerate it.
I believe that that it will happen. Doubtless, though, the work is hard because important principles are at stake on both sides.
Thanks,
Br. JR, OSF
J
JReducation
Guest
The bold is mine.
I don’t think that individuals would get a negative reaction from the Holy See if they choose to do this, as long as it is clear that this is their choice and as long as they do not teach their choice to other Catholics as the right choice.
The issue then becomes one of authority. To put it in our jargon, “Who’s in charge here?”
I believe that what the Holy See wants to see (no redundance intended) is an acceptance that it is in charge and whatever it teaches is authoritative and cannot be publicly refuted, even though individuals may say that they prefer to do it the way we always did it. I can’t believe that the Holy See would have a major problem with that. It when you try to tell people that the Holy See is wrong that they get slightly upset.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
- Status